Irate Android devs aim to replace Google’s proprietary bits

Google has angered the Android enthusiast community by sending a cease and …

Google is facing a major backlash from the Android community after sending a cease-and-desist order to the independent developer behind a popular Android mod. The controversy reflects some of the licensing challenges that are raised by mobile platforms that incorporate both open and proprietary components. It also illuminates yet another weak point in Google's commitment to delivering a truly inclusive and open platform.

Developer Steve Kondik, known by his handle Cyanogen, is an independent Android hacker who builds custom ROM images that users can install on their Android-powered handsets. His customizations are well-liked and bring significant improvements to the platform. A growing number of Android enthusiasts contend that the stock platform doesn't live up to expectations and that the custom ROM, particularly its performance optimizations, are essential to having a quality Android user experience. The problem, however, is that the custom ROM ships with Google's proprietary software components, such as the Android Market and Maps applications.

Third-party developers do not have a license to distribute these components and consequently cannot include them in custom ROMs without committing copyright infringement. Licensing issues of this nature have always cast a shadow over ROM hacking, but major mobile platform vendors have generally been willing to look the other way because the practice is mostly harmless, largely beneficial to advanced users, and would be very difficult to stop. Among Windows Mobile enthusiasts, for example, use of "cooked" ROMs is almost ubiquitous and a number of popular forums have emerged across the Internet to provide users and practitioners with a means of collaborating and distributing the custom ROMs.

Google, however, appears to be significantly less permissive on this front than Microsoft. The company's legal department objects to the Cyanogen mod on the basis of its inclusion of Google's proprietary software. They sent Kondik a cease and desist order compelling him to remove the mod from his Web site. The Android enthusiast community has responded fiercely, condemning Google for taking a heavy-handed approach. Even Google's own Android team appears to be frustrated with the legal department's zeal. After the news about the cease and desist broke, Google developer Jean-Baptiste Queru posted a message on Twitter suggesting that he could be pursuing alternate employment opportunities.

Kondik expressed disgust with the entire situation, but has been working with Google to find a reasonable resolution. He remains optimistic that he can accommodate Google's requirements and still make his mod available to users. In a blog entry posted Sunday, he explained how he plans to move forward. The Cyanogen mod will no longer include Google's proprietary applications. Instead, users who have "Google Experience" phones will back up those applications to external media and will restore them after installing the modded ROM. He is building a special tool to facilitate the backup and restoration process.

"There are lots of things we can do as end-users and modders, though, without violating anyones rights. Most importantly, we are entitled to back up our software. Since I don't work with any of these closed source applications directly, what I intend to do is simply ship the next version of CyanogenMod as a 'bare bones' ROM," he wrote. "You'll be able to make calls, MMS, take photos, etc. In order to get our beloved Google sync and applications back, you'll need to make a backup first. I'm working on an application that will do this for you."

The long-term solution, however, will be to replace Google's proprietary applications with open source alternatives. Queru launched a discussion on Google's Android platform mailing list about the possibility of expanding the scope of the Android open source project and eventually using it as the basis for building an entirely open Android stack. There is also a separate initiative called the Open Android Alliance which is specifically focusing on building open source equivalents for Google's applications.

Both of these efforts appear to be constructive and nonconfrontational attempts to make the Android platform better and more open. Google engineers are actively participating in the discussion and are generally supportive of the goals.

Google's relationship with the Android development community has been on shaky ground since the start. Prior to the initial launch of the G1, the project had a closed development process and the company showed very little regard for the third-party developer community. The situation improved when Google released the source code following the launch of the G1, but some friction has remained. The problem is that Android has fallen short of Google's original commitment to a fully open platform and open devices on which users would be able to run anything.

Google's public response to the Cyanogen controversy, posted in the Android developers blog, was somewhat disappointing. After several paragraphs of self-congratulatory rhetoric about the openness of the platform, Google's Dan Morrill nebulously declared that "unauthorized distribution of this software harms us just like it would any other business." He doesn't say how third-party distribution of the software is harmful to Google or why it's under a proprietary license to begin with in light of the company's promise of an open platform.

Google is certainly entitled to protect its legal rights and has done exactly that throughout the course of the Cyanogen controversy. The unfortunate aspect of this incident is that it further demonstrates Google's unwavering apathy towards the community of third-party developers who are working to make the company's platform better. Android had the opportunity to be the open answer to Apple's walled garden, but instead it's just a walled garden with a lower wall.

Developers should realize they have to respect copyright laws and Google's own rights.

You simply can't copy and distribute things you do not have a copyright to or a license to do so.

Quit complaining. You are totally wrong if you are.

Android is part open and part proprietary. You can distribute the open part - such as the underlying Linux code. But you can't distribute the proprietary part. Period. Duh. It's that simple. So follow the rules. That is all you have to do.

So the phone comes with Android Market and Maps? And after it is flashed it has Android Market and Maps on it? Cease and desist putting Android Market and Maps onto a phone that already had them on it? Lawyers have to defend their big salaries somehow, but I just can't see how this even approaches anything ethically wrong. Laws and ethics are completely separate in this case but they were originally intended to be one and the same.

Originally posted by JamesKatt:Android is part open and part proprietary. You can distribute the open part - such as the underlying Linux code. But you can't distribute the proprietary part. Period. Duh. It's that simple. So follow the rules. That is all you have to do.

Which is exactly what they are doing. Durr. This isn't the Pirate Bay. Cyanogen has been tearing his hair out (along with much of the Android homebrew community, I'm sure), trying to comply with Google and to comply peaceably and respectfully. And no one is saying Google doesn't have a right to do what they're doing.

It's just that it seems silly. Yeah, Google has the legal right. But why? I buy a G1, it comes with Market, Maps, etc. I root my phone, install Cyanogen's custom ROM, and I still have Market and Maps. Even if Google is getting some kind of royalty for those apps...they're still getting it. I'm not paying T-Mobile or Google any less money than I would have been. So why the fuss?

For an open platform, it seems senseless, counterproductive, and unnecessary. That's all this is.

Considering that a lot of the Android phone user base is very pro open source, this sort of backlash from Google most certainly steps on the toes of their very own customers.

And I seriously don't see what the damage aside from technicalities is. My MyTouch has Google Maps and Marketplace on it stock, what the hell is the problem with a very invasive mod putting it back after doing its thing?

I'm far from a legal expert, but from my perspective we already have licenses for those Apps, only a little reshuffling of the "deck" happens. Or am I looking at this wrong?

Originally posted by JamesKatt:You simply can't copy and distribute things you do not have a copyright to or a license to do so.

To use a music analogy:

You an I own a particular music CD. I record my own rendition of the 1812 Overture, and then burn it on to a CD that also has a song from that CD that we both own. Then I only give the CD that I made to you.

So now you have a copy of a song that I'm legally allowed to make and distribute under my own copyright. And you have another copy of a song that you already own, that you could have made yourself.

I think google picked the wrong fight. As an owner of a google exp phone I have already payed for the programs this fight is over. If I want to redownload it from a 3rd party I damn well should be able to. If some one was folding the programs into a rom for a non google exp phone then that would be a fight I would understand. They jumped the gun and shot themself in the foot with this one.

Originally posted by ReverendDC:So much for Google's commitment to open source....

That's a little hyperbolic, don't you think?

Yes, Google is putting some annoying speed bumps down in front of the Android developer community, but they haven't suddenly locked the whole platform down. And Google's "commitment to open source" goes a bit farther than just Android.

Originally posted by ReverendDC:So much for Google's commitment to open source....

Actually, I agree with Google's stance here. Not necessarily from a copyright standpoint but more for one from security. Google made the Android platform and the platform itself is heavily open-source. Google then has a series of proprietary applications that operate on their servers and their systems to provide other functionality (like mail, maps, etc).

Not saying anything against open-source devs...but say someone says "I've created this great ROM for your Android device that has all these features...but I'm also including GMail, Google Maps, and a bunch of other Google applications." In the perfect world, this would be great. However, there are some less than scrupulous people out there who may take advantage of this and release a ROM for Android devices which have modified versions of these Google Apps or other alterations which can cause serious issues.

I know it may seem farfetched...but I think Google is just trying to protect their infrastructure and users. Sure most of the users out there will not cause problems...but who knows how much damage a few bad apples can cause.

The article said "The long-term solution, however, will be to replace Google's proprietary applications with open source"

Don't you think that another solution would be to change Google applications license?I mean that these applications would still be proprietary, but the license should allow them to be freely distributed in a custom ROM.

I admit that I'm not the best informed person on this topic, but my impression is that Google started the project with the intention of making a totally open, linux-like OS for phones, and then ran up against the hard reality of the carriers.

Android is not very open compared to a PC running Linux. But it's a lot more open than most other phones -- than iPhones or Palm Pre's.

The way forward is to support true network neutrality for wireless. If the phone companies have to let us plug the devices we want into their networks, and if they have to let us use those networks in the ways we want, we'll have an open platform.

Originally posted by DiHua:The article said "The long-term solution, however, will be to replace Google's proprietary applications with open source"

Don't you think that another solution would be to change Google applications license?I mean that these applications would still be proprietary, but the license should allow them to be freely distributed in a custom ROM.

Would it be possible?

Absolutely possible. But if google wanted to allow that then they would of not sent out the cease and desist letters.

Originally posted by ReverendDC:So much for Google's commitment to open source....

That's a little hyperbolic, don't you think?

Yes, Google is putting some annoying speed bumps down in front of the Android developer community, but they haven't suddenly locked the whole platform down. And Google's "commitment to open source" goes a bit farther than just Android.

It is an overstatement, but as you say, Google has a history of dedication to opensource, and that makes this whole thing *more* confusing. The software comes free with the standard release. The decision to defend against the distribution of their applications (which they certainly have a right to do) is contrary to (a major part of) their business model: provide an effective platform by which users may get on the web and use their services. Maybe it's more accurate to say it leaves me scratching my head.

---

quote:

"Android had the opportunity to be the open answer to Apple's walled garden, but instead it's just a walled garden with a lower wall."

You an I own a particular music CD. I record my own rendition of the 1812 Overture, and then burn it on to a CD that also has a song from that CD that we both own. Then I only give the CD that I made to you.

So now you have a copy of a song that I'm legally allowed to make and distribute under my own copyright. And you have another copy of a song that you already own, that you could have made yourself.

I'm not sure I see where the problem is.

The problem occurs when your method of "giving" that CD to your friend involves ripping it and openly posting it on the internet where your friend + the entire world are now able to access it.

Was thinking about picking up a Android phone but meh i'll let it slide.It's Google's right to protect their code and they're also taking the right to be fucking stupid, don't fuck with your devs Google, they might not be as committed to your platform as you think they are.

Actually, I agree with Google's stance here. Not necessarily from a copyright standpoint but more for one from security. Google made the Android platform and the platform itself is heavily open-source. Google then has a series of proprietary applications that operate on their servers and their systems to provide other functionality (like mail, maps, etc).

I know it may seem farfetched...but I think Google is just trying to protect their infrastructure and users. Sure most of the users out there will not cause problems...but who knows how much damage a few bad apples can cause.

Actually, I agree with Google's stance here. Not necessarily from a copyright standpoint but more for one from security. Google made the Android platform and the platform itself is heavily open-source. Google then has a series of proprietary applications that operate on their servers and their systems to provide other functionality (like mail, maps, etc).

I know it may seem farfetched...but I think Google is just trying to protect their infrastructure and users. Sure most of the users out there will not cause problems...but who knows how much damage a few bad apples can cause.

Sounds like Google should've been thinking of a new business model. If they can't fight the competition, their business should die. We don't keep horse and buggy shops around, either.

Originally posted by geoken:The problem occurs when your method of "giving" that CD to your friend involves ripping it and openly posting it on the internet where your friend + the entire world are now able to access it.

Except that the only people that can make use of it are the people that already bought it. To everyone else it's just a bunch of useless 1s and 0s.

"I know it may seem farfetched...but I think Google is just trying to protect their infrastructure and users. Sure most of the users out there will not cause problems...but who knows how much damage a few bad apples can cause."

I'm sorry but I don't agree one bit. Windows Mobile users have been doing this for years, yet I don't see any problems arising from custom Roms using proprietary Microsoft software. Its pretty sad that you can do less on an 'open' Android platform than on a closed source Windows Mobile OS. Heck beta builds of Windows Mobile are released every week, and yet MS is not sending cease and desist orders. (the few that have involve certain aspects that MS does not want released yet, which is fair in my books).

If this is not a security risk for MS, it should not be for Android either. Google should be ashamed of themselves, especially when you consider that the ROM cooks are most likely doing this for free. The end user is already paying to license the software in question, so there is absolutely no money lost. This is the kind of behavior that you would expect from one of the other two software giants, as the way I see it, the only reason to endorse such behavior is because legal does not want people staying with their old phones, as ROM cooks can upgrade to the latest and greatest. (for example the HTC magic now has the Hero engine). I will not buy an Android phone if these kind of restrictions are not lifted.

1. The ROM is useless without a phone that you've already paid google the privilege to run.2. Cyan's fix (backing up the proprietary apps, then restoring the backup) satisfies the requirements for some bloody stupid reason.

End result: Same damn thing, except now there's an extra step in the install.

I can kind of see where Google is coming from, since you could buy a G1 or HTC Magic (MyTouch in the US) in another country without the "Google Experience" and then flash to Cyanogen's ROM to get those apps. But Google wasn't going to get any money for those users anyway, and when they use Google services like Gmail and Youtube they're likely to use them on their home computers as well, where they can be served ads. As a US MyTouch user, my carrier has already paid for the Google Experience, and I think it's lame that I've got to stick with the stock ROM in order to use those apps. Especially when you consider how much Cyangoen's ROM improves on Android, while T-Mobile's version languishes. I'm not even sure if they've pushed out the fix for the vulnerability which also lets you one-click root you phone.

I like the backup and restore plan. If that's what we have to do, then so be it. But I think Google is shooting themselves in the foot here. Depending on who wants to get upset, Cyanogen could have problems with HTC, Qualcomm and Texas Instruments as well. From his Twitter feed yesterday:

So you can change the ROM, but you could potentially have to write your own drivers to get it to work on ANY phone (with perhaps the exception of the dev phone?). That's a scary thought, and would really devastate the homebrew community.

Android at its core is open source. Google's extra apps are not, and I believe they get a kick-back from carriers for including the extra apps and making it a "with Google" phone.

If they allowed modders to distribute these apps as they like, surely then the carriers would think "well, we should do the same", therefore Google would make less/no money of their "with Google" additions.

Surely this is the base of the problem?

I think the Android community has gone way OTT with their vitriol towards Google, even though I also think it was a case of the hands (lawyers/upper management) acting without the brain (Google's Android devs) being consulted with the heavy-handed way Google went about it with the cease-and-desist order.

Originally posted by Da_Captain:Android at its core is open source. Google's extra apps are not, and I believe they get a kick-back from carriers for including the extra apps and making it a "with Google" phone.

If they allowed modders to distribute these apps as they like, surely then the carriers would think "well, we should do the same", therefore Google would make less/no money of their "with Google" additions.

Surely this is the base of the problem?

I think the Android community has gone way OTT with their vitriol towards Google, even though I also think it was a case of the hands (lawyers/upper management) acting without the brain (Google's Android devs) being consulted with the heavy-handed way Google went about it with the cease-and-desist order.

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that you don't have to vigorously defend copyright like you do trademark. So Google could sue, say, Sprint, for putting those apps on without paying, and Sprint couldn't defend themselves by saying "well you didn't sue Cyanogen so it's out there now." There are something like 30,000 Cyanogen users worldwide. I'd be curious to know how many of them started out with Google Experience phones, but I'm not sure there's any way to find out short of asking.

So you can change the ROM, but you could potentially have to write your own drivers to get it to work on ANY phone (with perhaps the exception of the dev phone?). That's a scary thought, and would really devastate the homebrew community.

Welcome to Linux and open source. Glad to meet you.

Now your probably trying to understand what is going on and you may be a bit confused and dismade that corporations are not your friends and hardware folks are unable to communicate and work with you in a friendly and open manner.

The problem your dealing with the drivers is a combination of government regulations and the fact that these companies are hardwired to favor protecting their intellectual property over making money and keeping their customers happy.

The problems your dealing with software distribution is the price you pay for dealing with proprietary software companies. They are very mercinary, like any business should be, and will only act out of their own best interest.

Also they enter into agreements with other proprietary companies and often the software that you get shipped (in this case from Google) is not written by the people that shipped it to you. (In this case google didn't write lots of the software on the android that Google is now obligated to send the cease and desist letters about)

This is why we have the GPL and similar copyleft licenses and religiously make sure that operating systems that we ship and we use are compatible with licenses like that.

I know to software developers who would love nothing more then to take open source software and make it proprietary and make lots of money from restricting the rights of others that the idea of "copyleft licensing" may seem restrictive and overbearing, but they are a absolutely critical to the continued commercial growth of open source software.

Oh, and maybe you now understand why Linux folks seem to be irrational about 'proprietary drivers' and such things.

The next problem is going to be when people realize that the terms and conditions of the Google web services that these applications rely on allow Google to prohibit third party applications from using them. What will the modders do then? The Google infrastructure represents a huge investment that it's not going to be practical to replace any time soon.

Also they enter into agreements with other proprietary companies and often the software that you get shipped (in this case from Google) is not written by the people that shipped it to you. (In this case google didn't write lots of the software on the android that Google is now obligated to send the cease and desist letters about)

You haven't been paying attention. Google sent a cease & desist about their apps (which they wrote), not about Qualcomm or somebody's drivers. That's still Qualcomm's job, and so far they haven't done it. But I think Cyanogen is becoming aware of the fact that they could, and that's a bit scary for him. I believe his day job is to write software so he's not likely to tell these guys to screw off or that they're not within their rights to tell him to stop.

It's funny to me that Microsoft, of all companies, is being less restrictive than Google as far as homebrew ROMs go.

I did enjoy the patronization in your post, though, 9/10! (One point off for spelling)

I'm really very confused about this. On the XDA Devs site, they redistribute windows mobile builds practically daily, complete with mobile office, etc. I guess one of the main differences is that windows mobile is windows mobile is windows mobile. There are no differences in terms of proprietary apps shipped on different windows mobile devices, generally. Android is sometimes android, sometimes android "with google", etc.

But where does that leave efforts that are porting android to non-android designed phones? And why can't google just offer up these apps for download somewhere, tied to IMEI? So if you have an IMEI that is from a google phone, you can run them. If you don't, you can't. Easy peasy. Or put some google certs in unflashable storage somewhere on the phone, and require those certs to run the software, similar to what Nokia does with their software.

I really think this is a miscommunication somewhere within the monstrosity that is google. As for drag's comments, there is nothing wrong with proprietary drivers, as long as they aren't restricted in terms of distribution. The linux graphics drivers are a perfect example of how to do this right: yes, I have to get them myself, but as an owner of the hardware they drive, I have every legal right to use them. And neither Nvidia nor AMD (nee ATi) are going to revoke the right to those drivers any time soon, or they would have a shit storm of epic proportions descend upon their heads. You are correct about one thing though: linux folks often are irrational about these sorts of issues.

Isn't this the same reason you are not allowed to bundle Adobe Flash with your Linux distribution?All you can do is make it easier for the user to download it (or create an open source equivalent), which seems to be what the community intends to do.As to why these apps would be proprietary in the first place, I think it comes down to what Andy Rubin described as the three flavors of Android.

quote:

On the question of apps, Mr. Rubin reinforced Google’s position that Android is an “open” platform, though, critically, that concept has some nuance to it. It goes like this: there are three flavors of Android. Each is free. But the versions place different requirements on the handset manufacturers and wireless carriers. The differing versions — and the way they’re being adopted — give an insight both into Google’s goals and to the way the market is receiving those goals.

1. The obligation-free option: device manufacturers can download a free version of Android, load it onto their devices and provide access to as many or as few apps as they want. But the manufacturers cannot preload popular Google applications, like Gmail or Google calendar.

2. The small strings option: Same as Option 1, except that manufacturers sign a distribution agreement to include Google applications on the phone. Of the 18 to 20 phones coming out this year, Mr. Rubin said, 12 to 14 subscribe to this option.

3. The bigger strings option or the no-censorship version: These phones Google calls “The Google Experience.” They are physically distinguishable by the “Google” logo on the phone. They include a range of Google applications that the carrier and handset maker agree not to remove from the phone. The carrier and handset maker also agree not to censor access to the Android market. Which means that if some developer comes up with an application that some people find distasteful, or that gets bad press, it must nevertheless remain available to consumers. Of the phones coming out this year, five or six belong to this category, Mr. Rubin said.

Google wants an easy and painless way to provide their mobile services to end users. And to ensure this, they need some standardization. Sure, handset manufacturers and carriers will always want to differentiate themselves, so they allow modifications up to a point. After all, having 5 different looking UI's is better than having 5 completely incompatible platforms.

As for XDA, I hope they can come to some agreement with Google. I don't see how them pre-loading Google's applications actually hurts the platform. These users are tech-savvy enough to realize that some apps may not work on their modified builds.

Originally posted by jwbaker:The obvious solution is for Google to man up and make Android faster out of the box.

This won't make any difference. Custom ROMs are about a lot more than performance. They are custom. Different layouts, different icons, fonts, sounds, backgrounds, utilities. There may be a few people who flash a custom ROM just for the sake of performance, but there's a lot more to it than that.

Take away custom ROMs and you decrease the number of geeks interested in your phone. I use EnergyROM for my touch-pro, and that keeps me from upgrading to a TP2, simply because I know the design isn't available for it yet.

I'm amazed at the excessive amount of irrational rage, and bizarre overload of stress that Cyanogen seems to have heaped upon himself over this.

I suspect that the Google apps are a value-add for the hardware manufacturers that go with Android and enter an agreement (possibly paying money) to Google so they can preload what are arguably high value apps. If they were allowed to freely redistribute those apps, then there'd be no value should someone decide to roll with Android without talking to Google.

What's funny is Google has to do with certain drivers what he'll have to do with the apps. Google can't distribute certain Qualcomm drivers directly (only HTC can via sale of the device) and as a result the platform SDK has to copy the drivers off the device before you can assemble a functional image.

Cyanogen is just now realizing, apparently, that he's violating that license too. Apparently he was not paying attention when installing the SDK. Besides, he'll have to do something similar anyway as non-HTC Android phones start hitting the streets and the drivers he pulled off his G1 potentially have compatibility issues with whatever Samsung or Motorola use.

This won't kill any custom ROMs, it'll just make it a two step process of installing the ROM then restoring the necessary files. Oh so terrible.

Google was well within its rights, but simply handled the legal matters in a way inconsistent with the goals of the platform. If legal had consulted the dev team prior to sending a cease and desist, this would be a slight blip and nothing more.

Originally posted by Theli:Isn't this the same reason you are not allowed to bundle Adobe Flash with your Linux distribution?All you can do is make it easier for the user to download it (or create an open source equivalent), which seems to be what the community intends to do.As to why these apps would be proprietary in the first place, I think it comes down to what Andy Rubin described as the three flavors of Android.

quote:

On the question of apps, Mr. Rubin reinforced Google’s position that Android is an “open” platform, though, critically, that concept has some nuance to it. It goes like this: there are three flavors of Android. Each is free. But the versions place different requirements on the handset manufacturers and wireless carriers. The differing versions — and the way they’re being adopted — give an insight both into Google’s goals and to the way the market is receiving those goals.

1. The obligation-free option: device manufacturers can download a free version of Android, load it onto their devices and provide access to as many or as few apps as they want. But the manufacturers cannot preload popular Google applications, like Gmail or Google calendar.

2. The small strings option: Same as Option 1, except that manufacturers sign a distribution agreement to include Google applications on the phone. Of the 18 to 20 phones coming out this year, Mr. Rubin said, 12 to 14 subscribe to this option.

3. The bigger strings option or the no-censorship version: These phones Google calls “The Google Experience.” They are physically distinguishable by the “Google” logo on the phone. They include a range of Google applications that the carrier and handset maker agree not to remove from the phone. The carrier and handset maker also agree not to censor access to the Android market. Which means that if some developer comes up with an application that some people find distasteful, or that gets bad press, it must nevertheless remain available to consumers. Of the phones coming out this year, five or six belong to this category, Mr. Rubin said.

Google wants an easy and painless way to provide their mobile services to end users. And to ensure this, they need some standardization. Sure, handset manufacturers and carriers will always want to differentiate themselves, so they allow modifications up to a point. After all, having 5 different looking UI's is better than having 5 completely incompatible platforms.

As for XDA, I hope they can come to some agreement with Google. I don't see how them pre-loading Google's applications actually hurts the platform. These users are tech-savvy enough to realize that some apps may not work on their modified builds.

The problem your dealing with the drivers is a combination of government regulations and the fact that these companies are hardwired to favor protecting their intellectual property over making money and keeping their customers happy.

Battlefront territory but being proprietary doesn't imply that one can't make customers happy and hence make money. More correctly one can't make a certain group happy and hence make money off them.

quote:

Cyanogen is just now realizing, apparently, that he's violating that license too. Apparently he was not paying attention when installing the SDK.

One would think a group aware of licenses wouldn't make such a mistake.